Monthly Archives: October 2017

Hot off of last year’s heartfelt sci-fi hit Arrival, director Denis Villeneuve returns to the same genre once more but this time, he has his sights on something even more ambitious: a direct sequel to one of the genre’s most influential and visually quoted works that comes 35 years after the original. Given how much could have gone wrong, it’s remarkable just how much Blade Runner 2049 gets it right, from its flawless production design to its nuanced storytelling that muses on the same existential themes that ran through the 1982 future-noir classic. This is an awe-inspiring follow-up that further expands Blade Runner‘s already vast scope to a futurescape with dazzling depth and a grandeur without rival.

The story follows sullen LAPD detective K (Ryan Gosling) as he carries out his duty as a Blade Runner by tracking down a class of older generation Replicants (advanced robots made to look identical to humans) and “retiring” them as their very existence is illegal. After a visit with one such Replicant, he discovers a chest buried deep in the ground (with the help of a handy drone that detaches from the roof of his car) that leads him on an investigation that could have cataclysmic ramifications on the relationship between man and machine. His search for answers pits him against tech mogul Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) and his Replicant enforcer Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) while eventually leading him to legendary detective Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who’s been in hiding since the events of the first film.

Even more so than its predecessor, Blade Runner 2049 is a thorough and intentionally paced detective story that uses its futuristic setting to further deepen the mysteries at the heart of its story while adding a layer of insight into how humankind may look 30 years from now. Among the film’s most prevalent themes is that which speculates humankind’s relationship to artificial intelligence and what we deem as “real” or “unreal”, whether it be a Replicant or an interactive advertisement or a sophisticated computer simulation meant to mimic human behavior. The role of Joi played brilliantly by Ana de Armas is the most consistent evocation of this concept, as she is characterized as the most empathic and understanding presence in K’s life despite the fact that her translucent appearance is a reminder that she is ultimately a collection of light dictated by 0s and 1s.

The nimble and seamless effects work is always first-rate, whether it is utilized in small ways like the depiction of raindrops falling softly on the hands of a hologram to the larger scale uses that bring the urban monoliths and pyramids of the first film back to life again. The production design is just as meticulous and makes every space feel like something we’ve never seen before and yet completely believable at the same time; I was struck in particular by the layout of Wallace’s office, whose minimalist wood-based configuration both looks stunning and reminds us that this world’s scarcity of trees means that a room like his could only be afforded by someone of great means. All of this is framed with the excellence of all-time great cinematographer Roger Deakins, previously nominated for an Oscar in his field on 13 different occasions and if there’s any justice, he won’t go home empty-handed next February.

Ryan Gosling continues his streak of seeking out challenging roles that still play to his strengths as a performer and here, he works off the baseline stoicism that we’ve seen from his roles in Nicolas Winding Refn’s films but adds notes of longing and warmth to his role. Similarly great is Ford, who, despite his more limited screentime in this movie, may actually give a better performance here as Deckard than he did in his first occasion playing the grizzled gumshoe all those years ago. Blade Runner 2049 is proof that sequels can be so much more than a retread of their source material and with the right minds at work, they can even supersede the legacy of the original.

The entertaining but cursory new sports biopic Battle of the Sexes from Little Miss Sunshine directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris covers the events that led to the what could be considered the most infamous US tennis match of all time: the 1973 exhibition between Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) and Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell). Functioning more as a personal tale of sexual awakening and ultimately as a message movie about equality, it unfortunately drops the ball when it comes to providing a compelling sports-driven narrative between its two main characters. One may be surprised just how little screen time Carell and Stone share prior to their climactic showdown and the decision to separate these two appealing actors is ultimately to the film’s detriment.

We are introduced to King as she learns of a vast disparity between the men’s and women’s cash prizes in professional tennis tournaments and after trying to plead her case of equal pay to USLTA chairman Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman), she instead forms her own all-female rival league. While getting makeovers at the salon with her new teammates, King has an instant connection with her hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough), with whom she pursues a romantic relationship unbeknownst to King’s husband Larry (Austin Stowell). Meanwhile, Riggs learns of King’s newly formed coalition and due to his flare for the theatrical, he challenges her to an inter-gender match with a $100,000 cash prize and bragging rights at stake.

Though the title implies a fair split of time between its central players, it’s clear that this is King’s story from the very beginning and it’s a sensible choice given that her struggle with inequality in professional sports mirrors the same issues of misogyny that women face to this day. Hot off her Oscar win for last year’s hit La La Land, Stone is a tremendously likeable screen presence and an excellent choice to play King as both a fiercely competitive spirit and a largely private person who seems cautious to let her true self through. It’s no surprise, then, that her scenes with Riseborough are among the film’s most memorable, especially the moment when they first meet and within the first few exchanges, its clear that King and Marilyn have a deep connection that throws them both off their game in the best way.

If King’s personal and professional contributions to the story count as the most successful elements of the film, the examination of Riggs as a character and the explanation of his role leading up to the titular face-off is markedly short-sighted by comparison. We find out about Riggs’ steadfast addiction to gambling and he is portrayed by Carell as a flamboyant showman whose proclivity for the outrageous is matched only by his unfettered desire for media attention but that’s about as deep as his character study runs. He proves his excellence as a provocateur by dubbing the match as a “women’s libber” against a self-professed “chauvinist male pig” but the movie never pierces through the public facade to discern Riggs’ true perspective on the hot-button issues.

Even if you don’t know the outcome of the match that was allegedly seen by 90 million people worldwide when it was televised in 1973, there’s not much tension during the film’s final scenes as the winner is eventually revealed. Whether the filmmakers assume a good portion of the audience already knows the outcome of the true event or assume those who don’t know will likely have a sensible prediction based on the narrative arc leading up to it, they don’t seem as interested in the final result as the gender-related controversies that sprung up from the famous duel. That’s likely why Battle of the Sexes feels sub-par as a sports movie but as an exploration of gender politics both past and present, it hits its mark.